# In other news, marijuana



## nutz

The U.S. docs and researchers are now starting to say maybe its not ok.


			https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2019-03-25/marijuana-er-visits-climb-in-denver-hospital-study
		









						Edibles are tied to more severe health issues than smoking marijuana
					

Most marijuana-linked cases at a Denver hospital involved weed smokers. But people who ate the drug were more likely to have heart or psych issues.




					www.sciencenews.org


----------



## BernieP

> Smoking marijuana, by contrast, was more likely to be linked with gastrointestinal issues,



I read a story on this a few years back.  It was hard to diagnose at first because people didn't divulge their use of weed.
But a doctor noticed a link and I think now when people have a specific set of symptoms they know to ask.
There was actually a term for the disorder of the bowel caused by canabis.


----------



## TCROW

Junk article. Reefer Madness: the reboot.

Increased short-term psychosis and rapid heartbeat sounds like freaking out because either (a) they didn’t expect the potency to be so strong. When you process THC to make edibles, a different compound is formed and is around 8x stronger than if you smoke it; or (b) eating too much. Eating edibles take much, much longer to take effect. If you’re inexperienced, you might have a brownie and not feel anything after 45 minutes or an hour. You then assume it’s not very potent and jam a couple more brownies down your maw.

Scientifically, there’s also selection bias here as their sample is only people who ended up in the ER. In fact, the article mentions that edibles is a correlation with these observations only and not causative.

It’s a click-bait title. Try to read beyond the headlines.


----------



## ferdberfel

Wow, eating too many gummies and then freaking out because they can't feel their face. Hahaha, wimps. Wonder how many people went to the ER for alcohol related issues or who overdosed on opiates provided by big pharma during the same time frame?


----------



## Yooper

TCROW said:


> Junk article. Reefer Madness: the reboot.
> ...
> 
> It’s a click-bait title. Try to read beyond the headlines.


I'm not so sure.

Let's revisit this in 10 years or so.

My bet is that we are going to find cannabis to be a far less benign substance than many hoped it would be; that the downside is going to be much more problematic than the touted benefits. Regardless of whether you're talking THC or CBD....

Could be wrong. Have been in the past, but this is what my grad-level research/interest is telling me....

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Midnightrider

Yooper said:


> I'm not so sure.
> 
> Let's revisit this in 10 years or so.
> 
> My bet is that we are going to find cannabis to be a far less benign substance than many hoped it would be; that the downside is going to be much more problematic than the touted benefits. Regardless of whether you're talking THC or CBD....
> 
> Could be wrong. Have been in the past, but this is what my grad-level research/interest is telling me....
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)


Just curious, how does your grad work relate to cannibis consumption and it’s effects?


----------



## Yooper

Midnightrider said:


> Just curious, how does your grad work relate to cannibis consumption and it’s effects?


My grad work is in mental health counseling (stated this way b/c I don't yet have my license or my PhD; though close, it is still "no cigar").

One of the "hot" topics these days is cannabis use.

My observation is that many are hoping what they would like to believe about cannabis actually ends up being true. My take is that, in the long run, they are going to be more disappointed than not; that benefits will not outweigh the downsides.

I'm not taking any side; just commenting on what I have seen in my mental health-related professional experience.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## TCROW

Yooper said:


> I'm not so sure.
> 
> Let's revisit this in 10 years or so.
> 
> My bet is that we are going to find cannabis to be a far less benign substance than many hoped it would be; that the downside is going to be much more problematic than the touted benefits. Regardless of whether you're talking THC or CBD....
> 
> Could be wrong. Have been in the past, but this is what my grad-level research/interest is telling me....
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)



For the record, I don’t necessarily think it’s benign or harmless. But I also don’t believe much of what my government tells me about it. I’d much rather live in a society that leaves these sorts of decisions up to the individual is all.


----------



## Yooper

TCROW said:


> For the record, I don’t necessarily think it’s benign or harmless. But I also don’t believe much of what my government tells me about it. I’d much rather live in a society that leaves these sorts of decisions up to the individual is all.


I think we are in agreement here.

Cheers!

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## vraiblonde

BernieP said:


> There was actually a term for the disorder of the bowel caused by canabis.



Pot pot?

I really couldn't care less if people want to hose themselves over by using drugs.  Drop like flies, bitches - fewer Democrat voters.  

Legalize it all and enact a law that says I can shoot anyone who bothers me because they're ****ed up.  The drug problem will solve itself.


----------



## This_person

TCROW said:


> For the record, I don’t necessarily think it’s benign or harmless. But I also don’t believe much of what my government tells me about it. I’d much rather live in a society that leaves these sorts of decisions up to the individual is all.


So long as the government doesn't take my money to house, feed, or otherwise assist the person who makes those decisions (either way), I agree with you.  I'd like to see the government get out of those decisions, health care insurance decisions, and so many others.


----------



## nutz

TCROW said:


> Junk article. Reefer Madness: the reboot.
> 
> Increased short-term psychosis and rapid heartbeat sounds like freaking out because either (a) they didn’t expect the potency to be so strong. When you process THC to make edibles, a different compound is formed and is around 8x stronger than if you smoke it; or (b) eating too much. Eating edibles take much, much longer to take effect. If you’re inexperienced, you might have a brownie and not feel anything after 45 minutes or an hour. You then assume it’s not very potent and jam a couple more brownies down your maw.
> 
> Scientifically, there’s also selection bias here as their sample is only people who ended up in the ER. In fact, the article mentions that edibles is a correlation with these observations only and not causative.
> 
> It’s a click-bait title. Try to read beyond the headlines.


Since you only participate to critique, try reading up some more on the topic. This is not a click-bait , it is more of an opinion piece written with clear annotations of where they sourced the material.  Personally, I would like to see narcan removed from the market, maybe in time.....


----------



## nutz

This_person said:


> So long as the government doesn't take my money to house, feed, or otherwise assist the person who makes those decisions (either way), I agree with you.  I'd like to see the government get out of those decisions, health care insurance decisions, and so many others.


That is probably the biggest part. They get high ( or refuse to work, or...), they whine and cry, somebody gives them help via tax dollars not their own dollars.


----------



## TCROW

nutz said:


> Since you only participate to critique, try reading up some more on the topic. This is not a click-bait , it is more of an opinion piece written with clear annotations of where they sourced the material.  Personally, I would like to see narcan removed from the market, maybe in time.....



Right. And their source is junk science which you did not read in its entirety. You scanned the headline, decided it aligned with your bias and went with it.


----------



## nutz

TCROW said:


> Right. And their source is junk science which you did not read in its entirety. You scanned the headline, decided it aligned with your bias and went with it.


I’d call you a dickhead, but I’m sure people like you without a prescribed x/y chromosome makeup prefer other terms. One thing for certain, your opinion and a rectum share the same smelly traits.


----------



## officeguy

TCROW said:


> Junk article. Reefer Madness: the reboot.
> 
> Increased short-term psychosis and rapid heartbeat sounds like freaking out because either (a) they didn’t expect the potency to be so strong. When you process THC to make edibles, a different compound is formed and is around 8x stronger than if you smoke it; or (b) eating too much. Eating edibles take much, much longer to take effect. If you’re inexperienced, you might have a brownie and not feel anything after 45 minutes or an hour. You then assume it’s not very potent and jam a couple more brownies down your maw.
> 
> Scientifically, there’s also selection bias here as their sample is only people who ended up in the ER. In fact, the article mentions that edibles is a correlation with these observations only and not causative.
> 
> It’s a click-bait title. Try to read beyond the headlines.



You apparently didn't read the article. It cites the data from a peer reviewed article in the annals of internal medicine. Nothing clickbaity about it.

Maybe if you smoked less of the dummyweed you would understand what the article says.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Yooper said:


> I'm not so sure.
> 
> Let's revisit this in 10 years or so.
> 
> My bet is that we are going to find cannabis to be a far less benign substance than many hoped it would be; that the downside is going to be much more problematic than the touted benefits. Regardless of whether you're talking THC or CBD....
> 
> Could be wrong. Have been in the past, but this is what my grad-level research/interest is telling me....
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)



To be fair, we've had almost 5 decades of government-funded research, "just say no" campaigns, and a failed war on drugs telling us how bad it is while at the same time, about half of Americans admit to using it, millions use it frequently, and no one has died directly from it.

Somehow I doubt another 10 years is going to tell us something we don't know. Unless, of course, the government actually allows research on the benefits of it, and we end up learning that it could have some benefits.


----------



## Clem72

Chris0nllyn said:


> Somehow I doubt another 10 years is going to tell us something we don't know. Unless, of course, the government actually allows research on the benefits of it, and we end up learning that it could have some benefits.



We do know there are some benefits. Again, people have to weigh the pros vs the cons. But one big benefit from the very beginning is getting cancer patients to regain their appetite, which improves their comfort during treatment and can lead to better treatment outcomes.

The other stuff about reduced inflamation in MS patients or pain reduction would need to be studied to determine if the effects are real, placebo, or non-existant.


----------



## This_person

Chris0nllyn said:


> To be fair, we've had almost 5 decades of government-funded research, "just say no" campaigns, and a failed war on drugs telling us how bad it is while at the same time, about half of Americans admit to using it, millions use it frequently, and no one has died directly from it.
> 
> Somehow I doubt another 10 years is going to tell us something we don't know. Unless, of course, the government actually allows research on the benefits of it, and we end up learning that it could have some benefits.



There's been research on the benefits.  It almost exclusively shows pot helps some medically in very limited ways, and that the help it provides can be done with other controlled medications much more effectively and efficiently.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

officeguy said:


> You apparently didn't read the article. It cites the data from a peer reviewed article in the annals of internal medicine. Nothing clickbaity about it.
> 
> Maybe if you smoked less of the dummyweed you would understand what the article says.



From the second link:


> Out of 2,567 marijuana-linked visits to the ER in 2012–2016 at the University of Colorado Hospital in Denver



So, over 4 years, they had 2,567 "marijuana-linked" visits to the ER. Or, about 641 visits per year.

According to hospital utilization data, the University of Colorado Hospital saw over 84,000 total ER visits in 2013, over 96,000 in 2014, over 101,000 in 2015, and over 100,000 in 2016. (2012 data is not provided in the Colorado Hospital Association's 5 year data). The actual total between 2013-2016 was 383,395.
https://cha.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2017-Databank-Utillization-Data-5-year-trends.pdf

So, (ignoring 2012 data) marijuana-linked hospital visits made up 0.67% of all ER visits (again, ignoring an entire year). If we assume the difference between 2013 and 2014 applies to 2012 to 2013, then 2012's ER visits would hypothetically be somewhere around 72,000 visits. Bringing the tyotal from 2012-2016 to about 455,395. Marijuana-linked events would then make up 0.56% of all visits. 

78 total hospitals in Colorado, and they chose to study just one? Are the marijuana-linked visits lower in parts of the state that haven't adopted legalized marijuana? How many of these visits were due _solely _to marijuana and not other drugs (like pain killers, anti-depressant, or others)?


----------



## Yooper

Chris0nllyn said:


> To be fair, we've had almost 5 decades of government-funded research, "just say no" campaigns, and a failed war on drugs telling us how bad it is *while at the same time, about half of Americans admit to using it, millions use it frequently*, and no one has died directly from it.
> 
> Somehow I doubt another 10 years is going to tell us something we don't know. Unless, of course, the government actually allows research on the benefits of it, and we end up learning that it could have some benefits.


I think now that use is "legal" you will start to see real data (as opposed to limited and/or extrapolated data).

As a result of the data points being more plentiful and more honest I think we'll get a better picture of the pro-s and con-s. And I think 10 years will be enough time to do so.

Again, not taking either side, only to say that currently the benefits are over-emphasized and the detriments under-emphasized. In other words, we are in the political phase of the discussion as opposed to the medical (i.e., we are not having an entirely honest conversation...). Sort of like public discussion of the three most addictive substances: nicotine, alcohol, and gambling where lots of cash/profit are at stake (so we over-emphasize the upside and seek to minimize the downside). (NOTE: with "addiction" being defined as BOTH craving AND withdrawal.)

One example of where I'm going with this line of thought: cannabis has long been touted as beneficial for sufferers of glaucoma. But "newish" research is showing that while it does help with ocular pressure there are downsides that perhaps outweigh its benefits.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Chris0nllyn

This_person said:


> There's been research on the benefits.  It almost exclusively shows pot helps some medically in very limited ways, and that the help it provides can be done with other controlled medications much more effectively and efficiently.



I'm not saying there hasn't been _any_ beneficial research. I'm saying that the overwhelming majority of the research is about the negative effects. 
Government controls the supply (shitty supply from one source) and controls the funding for research.

The DoJ continually blocks research because it is federally illegal and if you want federal funding (or work for a university that receives federal funding) for the research, the DoJ has to approve the production. 

In 2017, the National Academies of Sciences combed through 10,000 abstracts/studies since 1999 to look at what was studied. While it found some research from both sides, they state: 


> In addition to recommending more research on the beneficial and harmful effects of cannabis and cannabinoid use, the committee emphasized several challenges and barriers in conducting such research.  For instance, specific regulatory barriers, including the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance, impede the advancement of research.  Researchers also often find it difficult to gain access to the quantity, quality, and type of cannabis product necessary to address specific research questions.  The committee said a diverse network of funders is needed to support cannabis and cannabinoid research.








						Health Effects of Marijuana and Cannabis-Derived Products Presented in New Report
					

A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine offers a rigorous review of scientific research published since 1999 about what is known about the health impacts of cannabis and cannabis-derived products – such as marijuana and active chemical compounds known as...



					www8.nationalacademies.org


----------



## officeguy

Chris0nllyn said:


> To be fair, we've had almost 5 decades of government-funded research, "just say no" campaigns, and a failed war on drugs telling us how bad it is while at the same time, about half of Americans admit to using it, millions use it frequently, and no one has died directly from it.
> 
> Somehow I doubt another 10 years is going to tell us something we don't know. Unless, of course, the government actually allows research on the benefits of it, and we end up learning that it could have some benefits.



We had precious little research on THC and it's effects as the rules to do studies were so restrictive. And now, nobody in the industry wants to do rigorous studies as they all know that the benefits are very limited.


----------



## Ken King

Seems to be enough data out there that the WHO has recommended the removal of Cannabis (and resin) from Schedule IV of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs to Schedule I and other significant changes to the classification of cannabis isomers to lower schedules or removal from the psychotropic schedule. - https://www.who.int/medicines/acces...D41_recommendations_cannabis_24Jan19.pdf?ua=1

Note - the schedules run inversely to the US schedules.


----------



## Yooper

Just to add a data point (in support og my position that cannabis will not turn out to be as harmless as many (most?) believe):

Link: _"Cannabis during pregnancy bumps psychosis risk in offspring"_

I file this under the category of a "danger" many (perhaps?) would not consider.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Merlin99

Yooper said:


> Just to add a data point (in support og my position that cannabis will not turn out to be as harmless as many (most?) believe):
> 
> Link: _"Cannabis during pregnancy bumps psychosis risk in offspring"_
> 
> I file this under the category of a "danger" many (perhaps?) would not consider.
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)


I'm going to reserve judgement here, it may be that a person who would use cannabis may be genetically predisposed to psychosis.


----------



## officeguy

Yooper said:


> Just to add a data point (in support og my position that cannabis will not turn out to be as harmless as many (most?) believe):
> 
> Link: _"Cannabis during pregnancy bumps psychosis risk in offspring"_
> 
> I file this under the category of a "danger" many (perhaps?) would not consider.



There are cannabinoid receptors in multiple systems in the brain. Some of these systems deal with perception and emotion. Anyone with a basic understanding of how the brain develops and matures should not be suprised if we see permanent changes in those who decide to immerse their brain cells in the stuff.


----------



## Yooper

Added to the conversation as an additional data point. This speaks to several angles; one of which is my area of interest.

Here are three paragraphs from the middle of the editorial:

_Meanwhile, the measurable consequences for states that have legalized recreational marijuana have been bracing. Take Colorado, which in 2012 joined Washington as the first states to do so. Since then, marijuana-related traffic deaths in Colorado have increased by 151 percent, while overall state traffic deaths have increased by only 35 percent. Colorado emergency room visits related to marijuana increased by 52 percent, while marijuana-related hospitalizations overall increased 148 percent._
_
Relevant to that psychosis study, which was conducted in Europe, U.S.-grown cannabis tends to be more potent than the stuff smuggled in from abroad, leading to worse health outcomes. Moreover, as access to pot becomes less difficult, adolescents, too, find it easier and cheaper to secure. This is a looming public health disaster. A study published in JAMA Psychiatry in February found that adolescent marijuana use is associated with significant increases, by up to 40 percent, in the risk of developing depression and suicidal behavior in adulthood.
_
_The most compelling libertarian argument for legalizing weed has been that legalization would reduce crime by removing a black-market profit incentive along with attendant violence. Since legalization in Colorado, violent crime has increased nearly 19 percent (compared to the national increase of just 3.7 percent). Likewise, property crime increased approximately eight percent, compared to the national _decrease_ of 13.6 percent._


Link: _"EDITORIAL: Look at the science and stop the march toward legalized marijuana"_

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## TCROW

Yooper said:


> Added to the conversation as an additional data point. This speaks to several angles; one of which is my area of interest.
> 
> Here are three paragraphs from the middle of the editorial:
> 
> _Meanwhile, the measurable consequences for states that have legalized recreational marijuana have been bracing. Take Colorado, which in 2012 joined Washington as the first states to do so. Since then, marijuana-related traffic deaths in Colorado have increased by 151 percent, while overall state traffic deaths have increased by only 35 percent. Colorado emergency room visits related to marijuana increased by 52 percent, while marijuana-related hospitalizations overall increased 148 percent._



The problem with this oft-repeated statistic is that there's not really a way to determine if one is "on marijuana" at the time of an accident. The best that can be done is to do a blood test and determine if there's THC present and if there is, all that means is that the person consumed marijuana sometime in the past 30-45 days or so, depending on how heavy a user they are.



Yooper said:


> _Relevant to that psychosis study, which was conducted in Europe, U.S.-grown cannabis tends to be more potent than the stuff smuggled in from abroad, leading to worse health outcomes. Moreover, as access to pot becomes less difficult, adolescents, too, find it easier and cheaper to secure. This is a looming public health disaster. A study published in JAMA Psychiatry in February found that adolescent marijuana use is associated with significant increases, by up to 40 percent, in the risk of developing depression and suicidal behavior in adulthood._



I don't think any state pursuing legalization should make pot legal for anyone under the age of 21. The adolescent brain is developing and we do know that heavy marijuana use during that time can cause development issues. No question there.



Yooper said:


> _The most compelling libertarian argument for legalizing weed has been that legalization would reduce crime by removing a black-market profit incentive along with attendant violence. Since legalization in Colorado, violent crime has increased nearly 19 percent (compared to the national increase of just 3.7 percent). Likewise, property crime increased approximately eight percent, compared to the national _decrease_ of 13.6 percent._



I'd be interested in more on this, but the article only linked to the top-level of the FBI UCR page. They didn't drill down to the stats from which these conclusions were drawn, and I don't have the time right now to dig into it. Given the way stats dealing with marijuana legalization are often skewed (see first paragraph), skepticism will be my default position.

Link: _"EDITORIAL: Look at the science and stop the march toward legalized marijuana"_

--- End of line (MCP)
[/QUOTE]


----------



## This_person

Yooper said:


> _Meanwhile, the measurable consequences for states that have legalized recreational marijuana have been bracing. Take Colorado, which in 2012 joined Washington as the first states to do so. Since then, marijuana-related traffic deaths in Colorado have increased by 151 percent, while overall state traffic deaths have increased by only 35 percent. Colorado emergency room visits related to marijuana increased by 52 percent, while marijuana-related hospitalizations overall increased 148 percent._
> 
> _Relevant to that psychosis study, which was conducted in Europe, U.S.-grown cannabis tends to be more potent than the stuff smuggled in from abroad, leading to worse health outcomes. Moreover, as access to pot becomes less difficult, adolescents, too, find it easier and cheaper to secure. This is a looming public health disaster. A study published in JAMA Psychiatry in February found that adolescent marijuana use is associated with significant increases, by up to 40 percent, in the risk of developing depression and suicidal behavior in adulthood._
> 
> _The most compelling libertarian argument for legalizing weed has been that legalization would reduce crime by removing a black-market profit incentive along with attendant violence. Since legalization in Colorado, violent crime has increased nearly 19 percent (compared to the national increase of just 3.7 percent). Likewise, property crime increased approximately eight percent, compared to the national _decrease_ of 13.6 percent._
> 
> 
> Link: _"EDITORIAL: Look at the science and stop the march toward legalized marijuana"_
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)


I think the science MUST be wrong.  We have been told for decades that no one was refraining from using pot based on it being illegal, and that the usage numbers and consequences would not change one iota if it were decriminalized and made a legal substance.

Clearly the science on the results are wrong because of those assurances.


----------



## officeguy

Yooper said:


> Added to the conversation as an additional data point. This speaks to several angles; one of which is my area of interest.
> 
> Here are three paragraphs from the middle of the editorial:
> 
> _Meanwhile, the measurable consequences for states that have legalized recreational marijuana have been bracing. Take Colorado, which in 2012 joined Washington as the first states to do so. Since then, marijuana-related traffic deaths in Colorado have increased by 151 percent, while overall state traffic deaths have increased by only 35 percent. Colorado emergency room visits related to marijuana increased by 52 percent, while marijuana-related hospitalizations overall increased 148 percent._
> 
> _Relevant to that psychosis study, which was conducted in Europe, U.S.-grown cannabis tends to be more potent than the stuff smuggled in from abroad, leading to worse health outcomes. Moreover, as access to pot becomes less difficult, adolescents, too, find it easier and cheaper to secure. This is a looming public health disaster. A study published in JAMA Psychiatry in February found that adolescent marijuana use is associated with significant increases, by up to 40 percent, in the risk of developing depression and suicidal behavior in adulthood._
> 
> _The most compelling libertarian argument for legalizing weed has been that legalization would reduce crime by removing a black-market profit incentive along with attendant violence. Since legalization in Colorado, violent crime has increased nearly 19 percent (compared to the national increase of just 3.7 percent). Likewise, property crime increased approximately eight percent, compared to the national _decrease_ of 13.6 percent._
> 
> 
> Link: _"EDITORIAL: Look at the science and stop the march toward legalized marijuana"_
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)



 I still believe it should be legal. Not because it's good for you, simply because the 'war on drugs' is doing more damage than the drug itself.


----------



## nutz

Yooper said:


> Added to the conversation as an additional data point. This speaks to several angles; one of which is my area of interest.
> 
> Here are three paragraphs from the middle of the editorial:
> 
> _Meanwhile, the measurable consequences for states that have legalized recreational marijuana have been bracing. Take Colorado, which in 2012 joined Washington as the first states to do so. Since then, marijuana-related traffic deaths in Colorado have increased by 151 percent, while overall state traffic deaths have increased by only 35 percent. Colorado emergency room visits related to marijuana increased by 52 percent, while marijuana-related hospitalizations overall increased 148 percent._
> 
> _Relevant to that psychosis study, which was conducted in Europe, U.S.-grown cannabis tends to be more potent than the stuff smuggled in from abroad, leading to worse health outcomes. Moreover, as access to pot becomes less difficult, adolescents, too, find it easier and cheaper to secure. This is a looming public health disaster. A study published in JAMA Psychiatry in February found that adolescent marijuana use is associated with significant increases, by up to 40 percent, in the risk of developing depression and suicidal behavior in adulthood._
> 
> _The most compelling libertarian argument for legalizing weed has been that legalization would reduce crime by removing a black-market profit incentive along with attendant violence. Since legalization in Colorado, violent crime has increased nearly 19 percent (compared to the national increase of just 3.7 percent). Likewise, property crime increased approximately eight percent, compared to the national _decrease_ of 13.6 percent._
> 
> 
> Link: _"EDITORIAL: Look at the science and stop the march toward legalized marijuana"_
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)



From the editorial, “One comprehensive study — needing to be replicated, but still persuasive — concluded that “for every dollar gained in tax revenue, Coloradans spent approximately $4.50 to mitigate the effects of legalization” That lines up with what Ive been looking for. The windfall tax increases, where are they? This suggests that the taxpayers are subsidizing the program which would not surprise me.


----------



## nutz

officeguy said:


> I still believe it should be legal. Not because it's good for you, simply because the 'war on drugs' is doing more damage than the drug itself.


How so, by locking up “non-violent” criminals? By locking up a bigger share of minorities that broke the law?


----------



## officeguy

nutz said:


> How so, by locking up “non-violent” criminals? By locking up a bigger share of minorities that broke the law?



Locking up people should be reserved for those who do harm to others. Possessing a couple of ounces of pot or even selling it to other interested adults doesn't qualify under that criterion (if you are found selling it to an underage person you should be executed).


----------



## This_person

officeguy said:


> I still believe it should be legal. Not because it's good for you, simply because the 'war on drugs' is doing more damage than the drug itself.


how about cocaine?  Fentanyl?  Methamphetamines?  Heroine?  Opioids?  Scopolamine?  Crystal meth?  Morphine?


----------



## officeguy

This_person said:


> how about cocaine?  Fentanyl?  Methamphetamines?  Heroine?  Opioids?  Scopolamine?  Crystal meth?  Morphine?



All have a very different risk profile from pot. An apples/oranges thing.


----------



## nutz

officeguy said:


> Locking up people should be reserved for those who do harm to others. Possessing a couple of ounces of pot or even selling it to other interested adults doesn't qualify under that criterion (if you are found selling it to an underage person you should be executed).





officeguy said:


> Locking up people should be reserved for those who do harm to others. Possessing a couple of ounces of pot or even selling it to other interested adults doesn't qualify under that criterion (if you are found selling it to an underage person you should be executed).


Then you would need to petition to get the laws changed. Illegal is still illegal, why is that so difficult for so many to grasp?


----------



## This_person

officeguy said:


> All have a very different risk profile from pot. An apples/oranges thing.


So, it's not about freedom or the war on drugs or anything else, it's about pot itself?


----------



## officeguy

nutz said:


> Then you would need to petition to get the laws changed. Illegal is still illegal, why is that so difficult for so many to grasp?



Not sure what your point is. I simply stated my opinion on why I believe it should be legal. Its harmful, just as large sugary drinks, smoking, drinking in excess and not getting enough fiber. But we dont lock people up for doing those things, only if they harm others.


----------



## officeguy

This_person said:


> So, it's not about freedom or the war on drugs or anything else, it's about pot itself?



Accepting the downsides of the 'war on drugs' to keep a lid on the proliferation of opiates is worth it considering the danger from the drug category itself. For pot, its just not worth it.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

nutz said:


> From the editorial, “One comprehensive study — needing to be replicated, but still persuasive — concluded that “for every dollar gained in tax revenue, Coloradans spent approximately $4.50 to mitigate the effects of legalization” That lines up with what Ive been looking for. The windfall tax increases, where are they? This suggests that the taxpayers are subsidizing the program which would not surprise me.



Taxpayers got a check in the mail because Colorado made TOO MUCH tax money from the sale of recreational and medical marijuana.

It does not suggest taxpayers are doing anything because the study clearly points out costs to private individuals/companies as well.


----------



## This_person

officeguy said:


> Accepting the downsides of the 'war on drugs' to keep a lid on the proliferation of opiates is worth it considering the danger from the drug category itself. For pot, its just not worth it.


So, legally, pot is a Schedule I drug.  Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.  The abuse rate is a determinate factor in the scheduling of the drug; for example, Schedule I drugs have a high potential for abuse and the potential to create severe psychological and/or physical dependence.

What part of that legal definition from the DEA is not accurate?


----------



## Hijinx

The Marijuana horse is out of the barn, and there is no getting it back in.
Just come up with a test so those using it and driving, can be charged, and legalize it.


----------



## officeguy

This_person said:


> So, legally, pot is a Schedule I drug.  Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.  The abuse rate is a determinate factor in the scheduling of the drug; for example, Schedule I drugs have a high potential for abuse and the potential to create severe psychological and/or physical dependence.
> 
> What part of that legal definition from the DEA is not accurate?



I disagree with the DEA.


----------



## This_person

officeguy said:


> I disagree with the DEA.


Gotcha.  With what part of their definition do you have a disagreement?


----------



## Yooper

This_person said:


> how about cocaine?  Fentanyl?  Methamphetamines?  Heroine?  Opioids?  Scopolamine?  Crystal meth?  Morphine?


Ironically (?), prior to the Harrison Act (1914) all of this sort of stuff was legal. (Edit) Well, probably better to say, "wasn't illegal/controlled."

No war on drugs until then....

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## officeguy

This_person said:


> Gotcha.  With what part of their definition do you have a disagreement?



The high potential for abuse. Plenty of people who smoked two or three joints in college, said 'meh' and never had any desire to further pursue it. Different from opiates, stimulants and alcohol, there is very little physical addiction to the substance.

There is good reason to believe that the listing of cannabis on schedule I was done for political reasons, not because it fits the formal criteria for the category.


----------



## This_person

Yooper said:


> Ironically (?), prior to the Harrison Act (1914) all of this sort of stuff was legal.
> 
> No war on drugs until then....
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)


  I've seen the ads for elixers.

But, the question is, should they be legal or not?


----------



## This_person

officeguy said:


> The high potential for abuse. Plenty of people who smoked two or three joints in college, said 'meh' and never had any desire to further pursue it. Different from opiates, stimulants and alcohol, there is very little physical addiction to the substance.
> 
> There is good reason to believe that the listing of cannabis on schedule I was done for political reasons, not because it fits the formal criteria for the category.


There are a lot of people who take opiates, stimulants, and alcohol a few times and say "meh", too.

You're neglecting the psychological dependence.  "High potential for abuse" does not mean it is critical that every person ever abuses it.  Do you think there is abuse of pot?


----------



## officeguy

This_person said:


> There are a lot of people who take opiates, stimulants, and alcohol a few times and say "meh", too.
> 
> You're neglecting the psychological dependence.  "High potential for abuse" does not mean it is critical that every person ever abuses it.  Do you think there is abuse of pot?



You can be psychologically dependent on  twinkies, sex and affirmation by your peers. Doesn't mean we need the government to get in the middle of that either.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

This_person said:


> There are a lot of people who take opiates, stimulants, and alcohol a few times and say "meh", too.
> 
> You're neglecting the psychological dependence.  "High potential for abuse" does not mean it is critical that every person ever abuses it.  Do you think there is abuse of pot?



Would you agree that marijuana is worse (for the reasons you mention above) than fentanyl? Oxycontin, Cocaine, PCP, or Ketamine?

Because all those things are Schedule II and III drugs. According to the govt., marijuana is worse than all those things, including (funny enough) Marinol (a synthetic form of marijuana).


----------



## This_person

officeguy said:


> You can be psychologically dependent on  twinkies, sex and affirmation by your peers. Doesn't mean we need the government to get in the middle of that either.


But, if it were a drug that has a high potential for abuse of that, and for that to exist, then it would be a Schedule I drug.


----------



## This_person

Chris0nllyn said:


> Would you agree that marijuana is worse (for the reasons you mention above) than fentanyl? Oxycontin, Cocaine, PCP, or Ketamine?
> 
> Because all those things are Schedule II and III drugs. According to the govt., marijuana is worse than all those things, including (funny enough) Marinol (a synthetic form of marijuana).


I have not done the study to determine which is worse, and I am not ready to take my anecdotal evidence as sufficient to make that determination.

Would you be equally fine with marijuana being a schedule III or IV drug - still illegal for recreational use, but available by prescription for the things it has been shown to be valuable for (which, ironically, is "nothing")?


----------



## Yooper

This_person said:


> I've seen the ads for elixers.
> 
> But, the question is, should they be legal or not?


Two points.

First, to your point. I'm more interested in consequences of decisions rather than the govt telling me what my "decisions range" is. I realize that it's not that simple, but that's my starting point.

Second, the period the Harrison Act was passed is also instructive for us today. Though the issues are somewhat different the "puritan" urge to control is very similar. The mindset of Wilson's Progressivism (especially, the eugenics rage) is very similar to that of the Left today.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Chris0nllyn

This_person said:


> I have not done the study to determine which is worse, and I am not ready to take my anecdotal evidence as sufficient to make that determination.
> 
> Would you be equally fine with marijuana being a schedule III or IV drug - still illegal for recreational use, but available by prescription for the things it has been shown to be valuable for (which, ironically, is "nothing")?



But you've done studies to determine the lack of efficacy marijuana has medically?


----------



## officeguy

This_person said:


> But, if it were a drug that has a high potential for abuse of that, and for that to exist, then it would be a Schedule I drug.



I dont think it has a high potential for abuse.

I also dont believe that the DEAs stance that there is no accepted medical use for the substance is correct. It can be used to stimulate appetite and there is data to support that it reduces symptoms in some peripheral neuropathy patients. The listing on schedule I is simply not supported by the facts.


----------



## This_person

Chris0nllyn said:


> But you've done studies to determine the lack of efficacy marijuana has medically?


No, I've looked at the studies that were done that show they are somewhat effective on some things, but virtually always there is something better that already exists out there.

Would you be equally fine with marijuana being a schedule III or IV drug - still illegal for recreational use, but available by prescription if they come up with something useful for it?


----------



## This_person

officeguy said:


> I dont think it has a high potential for abuse.
> 
> I also dont believe that the DEAs stance that there is no accepted medical use for the substance is correct. It can be used to stimulate appetite and there is data to support that it reduces symptoms in some peripheral neuropathy patients. The listing on schedule I is simply not supported by the facts.


Would you be equally fine with marijuana being a schedule III or IV drug - still illegal for recreational use, but available by prescription if they come up with something useful for it?


----------



## nutz

officeguy said:


> Not sure what your point is. I simply stated my opinion on why I believe it should be legal. Its harmful, just as large sugary drinks, smoking, drinking in excess and not getting enough fiber. But we dont lock people up for doing those things, only if they harm others.


None of the things listed other than marijuana are illegal. That’s the point, do stuff thats illegal, bad things (jail) can happen.


----------



## nutz

Chris0nllyn said:


> Taxpayers got a check in the mail because Colorado made TOO MUCH tax money from the sale of recreational and medical marijuana.
> 
> It does not suggest taxpayers are doing anything because the study clearly points out costs to private individuals/companies as well.


Got a link?


----------



## Chris0nllyn

This_person said:


> No, I've looked at the studies that were done that show they are somewhat effective on some things, but virtually always there is something better that already exists out there.
> 
> Would you be equally fine with marijuana being a schedule III or IV drug - still illegal for recreational use, but available by prescription if they come up with something useful for it?



I know percocet is good for pain management and likely better than marijuana, but I hate the way it makes me feel. If I could, I'd be open to another choice. 

I would not. I think it should be legalized and regulated like a number of substances available to the public.



nutz said:


> Got a link?



I should clarify that the state did make money from marijuana sales , but not as much as they thought. The state as a whole did, however, made over $200 million more in revenue than the year before (2015) and TABOR (taxpayers bill of rights, the law in CO that led to the refund) requires a refund for everyone. 
https://money.cnn.com/2015/03/02/pf/taxes/colorado-pot-tax-refund/index.html

In 2015, voters chose to forego a refund check (when split up between everyone, it was only about $7) and let the state keep the money in order to build schools. 


> When the 2015 fiscal year ended, the tax collections had reached about $60 million. But the state's total revenue exceeded the projection by several hundred million.


https://www.governing.com/topics/elections/gov-election-2015-ballot-colorado-marijuana-revenue.html

In essense, I was incorrect and apologize for stating that everyone got a check, but the premise still stands (because they would have had they chose to do so). The state is making money.

The state continued to make money. As of last year, they made so much extra money that (because of TABOR) they cut taxes, fees, spent money on schools, roads, etc. and are at the weird position of not finding enough to spend tax money on. Taxpayers have allowed the state to use initial refunds for other things so far, but...



> In a stunning turn from this time a year ago, Colorado’s state coffers are suddenly so flush with cash that lawmakers may be required to send more than $200 million back to taxpayers over the next three years.





> Voters stopped the refund, easily approving Prop. BB by 66 percent.
> 
> The tax revenue will now go toward the programs it was allocated for: $40 million for public school construction and $12 million to fund marijuana education, substance abuse treatment and prevention, and youth mentoring services. The remainder goes to the state's general fund.





> Last year’s spending compromise also stipulated that the first refunds would pay for a property tax cut for seniors — a growing tax break now worth $150 million that has been eliminated to balance the budget in the past.





> “Pretty much everything has been protected now,” said Kevin Bommer, deputy director of the Colorado Municipal League. “There’s nowhere left to go than to start making cuts.”


https://www.denverpost.com/2018/07/16/fiscal-deal-colorado-taxpayer-refunds/


----------



## This_person

Chris0nllyn said:


> I know percocet is good for pain management and likely better than marijuana, but I hate the way it makes me feel. If I could, I'd be open to another choice.
> 
> I would not. I think it should be legalized and regulated like a number of substances available to the public.



Now you know why I say it is about pot, not "freedom" or "liberty" or anything else.  

If it was about "freedom and liberty", you would be calling the exact same thing for heroin and cocaine and crystal meth and fentanyl.  You're not.  It's about pot.

If it was about just putting pot where it belongs, you'd be all for making it a Schedule III (or something close).  You're not.  It's about pot.

This is why I say Libertarians are just about legalizing pot, not about "freedom" and "liberty", and why I don't take Libertarians as a party seriously.  Libertarians are not about freedom and liberty - they're about getting high.  This proves it to me.


----------



## Yooper

This_person said:


> This is why I say Libertarians are just about legalizing pot, not about "freedom" and "liberty", and why I don't take Libertarians as a party seriously.  Libertarians are not about freedom and liberty - they're about getting high.  This proves it to me.


For what it's worth....

I'm not so sure it _proves_ it. But it certainly gets you in the right ballpark!

I was a registered Libertarian in Maryland until recently MD-directed deregistered (as the party in MD apparently fell apart). No great lose as popular libertarianism (exemplified by issues like this - as you correctly note) seems to dominate the Libertarian Party. The LP platform seemed to be more like the Cato Institute on LSD than grown adults speaking like grown adults.

Anyway, good point. Sums up my disappointment with the LP ("I don't care about good libertarian policy, freedom, etc., I just want to get stoned without fear of arrest or high prices").

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## officeguy

This_person said:


> Would you be equally fine with marijuana being a schedule III or IV drug - still illegal for recreational use, but available by prescription if they come up with something useful for it?



I would be fine with that.

If alcohol and nicotine received the same treatment.


----------



## Clem72

This_person said:


> If it was about "freedom and liberty", you would be calling the exact same thing for heroin and cocaine and crystal meth and fentanyl. You're not. It's about pot.



I wouldn't call myself a libertarian. I am too lazy to have actual political opinions. But more often than not I lean libertarian.  I would decriminalize all of those drugs. You don't go to jail (and waste my tax money) for non-violent activity related to those drugs.  At most, you get a ticket and pay a fine.  Now if you commit actual crimes (theft, larsony, assault, DUI, etc.) you should of course be prosecuted, and not allowed to use "addiction" as an excuse or plea for a reduced sentence, since there should be plenty of resources for addicts to get clean.  It costs a lot less to run half way houses and rehab centers than prisons, and many of them are run from private charities so they cost the public nothing.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

This_person said:


> Now you know why I say it is about pot, not "freedom" or "liberty" or anything else.
> 
> If it was about "freedom and liberty", you would be calling the exact same thing for heroin and cocaine and crystal meth and fentanyl.  You're not.  It's about pot.
> 
> If it was about just putting pot where it belongs, you'd be all for making it a Schedule III (or something close).  You're not.  It's about pot.
> 
> This is why I say Libertarians are just about legalizing pot, not about "freedom" and "liberty", and why I don't take Libertarians as a party seriously.  Libertarians are not about freedom and liberty - they're about getting high.  This proves it to me.



Well, I have and do call for the decriminalization of all drugs and only focus on marijuana here because that's the scope of the thread.

I believe in voluntary exchanges between consenting adults whether it be marijuana, cocaine, or prostitution.

4.5 years ago:


rdytogo said:


> Would you be in favor of cocaine, heroin and prescription drugs being available and legal without prescriptions?





Chris0nllyn said:


> I'm in favor of all drugs being legalized and not allowing large pharmaceutical companies that lobby to Congress to rake in the dough while the same Congressmen tell us all that _certain_ drugs are bad for us.
> 
> In reality, prescription drugs kill more than illegal drugs do.
> http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1653518
> 
> Don't forget alcohol and cigarettes, which are totally legal and are advertised just about everywhere, but no one bats an eye at that.
> http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/











						Maryland's Resident Kook, Andy Harris, block pot decr. in DC
					

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2014/06/25/house-committee-votes-to-block-d-c-marijuana-decriminalization-law/  “As a physician, I have read study after study on the devastating effects of marijuana use, especially on developing brains of teenagers,"   Yes, because throwing...




					forums.somd.com
				




4 years ago:


Chris0nllyn said:


> Exactly, we should legalize all drugs.
> 
> Then Mexico wouldn't have anything to smuggle across the border except people and holidays.











						Marijuana laws are causing higher heroin and meth smuggling!
					

Agents believe that this is one an unintended consequence of more lax marijuana laws across the United States. They tell Fox News Latino that American-grown marijuana is increasingly more available and of better quality than what was smuggled from Mexico in the past.  So cartels are turning to...




					forums.somd.com
				




3 years ago:


Chris0nllyn said:


> ...
> 6. I think the govt. should decriminalize all drugs. I've stated my platform on this multiple times so I don't think I need to spell out why other than the current war on drugs isn't working, basically.
> ...











						Do you consider yourself a libertarian?
					

I have some questions regarding libertarianism; I'm interested in what various people consider to be libertarianism and to what extent they agree with it. And I'm referring to the general ideology, not to particular manifestation of libertarianism such as the Libertarian Party. Feel free to...




					forums.somd.com


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Yooper said:


> I was a registered Libertarian in Maryland until recently MD-directed deregistered (as the party in MD apparently fell apart).



It didn't fall apart, it failed to reach the state-imposed 1% threshold during the last election. 

the state said they need 10,000 signatures of registered voters in the state. the LP came back with a lawsuit stating that they have more than 10,000 registered members of the party in the state and questioned the need for the signatures. Recently, a judge decided not to halt the state from dropping the LP as a recognized party.

This happens every year and the LP constantly is fighting states for ballot access.


----------



## nutz

officeguy said:


> I would be fine with that.
> 
> If alcohol and nicotine received the same treatment.





Chris0nllyn said:


> I know percocet is good for pain management and likely better than marijuana, but I hate the way it makes me feel. If I could, I'd be open to another choice.
> 
> I would not. I think it should be legalized and regulated like a number of substances available to the public.
> 
> 
> 
> I should clarify that the state did make money from marijuana sales , but not as much as they thought. The state as a whole did, however, made over $200 million more in revenue than the year before (2015) and TABOR (taxpayers bill of rights, the law in CO that led to the refund) requires a refund for everyone.
> https://money.cnn.com/2015/03/02/pf/taxes/colorado-pot-tax-refund/index.html
> 
> In 2015, voters chose to forego a refund check (when split up between everyone, it was only about $7) and let the state keep the money in order to build schools.
> 
> https://www.governing.com/topics/elections/gov-election-2015-ballot-colorado-marijuana-revenue.html
> 
> In essense, I was incorrect and apologize for stating that everyone got a check, but the premise still stands (because they would have had they chose to do so). The state is making money.
> 
> The state continued to make money. As of last year, they made so much extra money that (because of TABOR) they cut taxes, fees, spent money on schools, roads, etc. and are at the weird position of not finding enough to spend tax money on. Taxpayers have allowed the state to use initial refunds for other things so far, but...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.denverpost.com/2018/07/16/fiscal-deal-colorado-taxpayer-refunds/





Chris0nllyn said:


> I know percocet is good for pain management and likely better than marijuana, but I hate the way it makes me feel. If I could, I'd be open to another choice.
> 
> I would not. I think it should be legalized and regulated like a number of substances available to the public.
> 
> 
> 
> I should clarify that the state did make money from marijuana sales , but not as much as they thought. The state as a whole did, however, made over $200 million more in revenue than the year before (2015) and TABOR (taxpayers bill of rights, the law in CO that led to the refund) requires a refund for everyone.
> https://money.cnn.com/2015/03/02/pf/taxes/colorado-pot-tax-refund/index.html
> 
> In 2015, voters chose to forego a refund check (when split up between everyone, it was only about $7) and let the state keep the money in order to build schools.
> 
> https://www.governing.com/topics/elections/gov-election-2015-ballot-colorado-marijuana-revenue.html
> 
> In essense, I was incorrect and apologize for stating that everyone got a check, but the premise still stands (because they would have had they chose to do so). The state is making money.
> 
> The state continued to make money. As of last year, they made so much extra money that (because of TABOR) they cut taxes, fees, spent money on schools, roads, etc. and are at the weird position of not finding enough to spend tax money on. Taxpayers have allowed the state to use initial refunds for other things so far, but...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.denverpost.com/2018/07/16/fiscal-deal-colorado-taxpayer-refunds/


Funny how you skipped the part about oil and gas money. Do a little more digging and  maybe you’ll see that the numbers just dont match.









						It's been 5 years since recreational marijuana was legalized in Colorado; Here's where the tax money stands
					

In just a few days, Denver will hit the five-year mark for the country's first commercial cannabis market. Jan. 1 is the anniversary of legal and recreational marijuana in Colorado.




					www.thedenverchannel.com


----------



## nutz

officeguy said:


> I would be fine with that.
> 
> If alcohol and nicotine received the same treatment.


What about gasoline, paint thinner, propane, spray paint, most aerosols, vaping supplies, nail polish remover, NyQuil, mouthwash, diet pills and even Nutmeg?


----------



## Chris0nllyn

nutz said:


> Funny how you skipped the part about oil and gas money. Do a little more digging and  maybe you’ll see that the numbers just dont match.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been 5 years since recreational marijuana was legalized in Colorado; Here's where the tax money stands
> 
> 
> In just a few days, Denver will hit the five-year mark for the country's first commercial cannabis market. Jan. 1 is the anniversary of legal and recreational marijuana in Colorado.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedenverchannel.com



I skipped a number of parts because I can't link the entire article. Not sure what's funny about it, but the idea that taxpayers are footing the bill is incorrect. Colorado is doing just fine.


----------



## This_person

Chris0nllyn said:


> Well, I have and do call for the decriminalization of all drugs and only focus on marijuana here because that's the scope of the thread.
> 
> I believe in voluntary exchanges between consenting adults whether it be marijuana, cocaine, or prostitution.


Can you show me a thread started that espouses the benefits of legalizing fentanyl?  By ANY Libertarian?


----------



## Chris0nllyn

This_person said:


> Can you show me a thread started that espouses the benefits of legalizing fentanyl?  By ANY Libertarian?



Fentanyl is already legal. 

I'm not sure what you're asking.


----------



## This_person

Chris0nllyn said:


> Fentanyl is already legal.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're asking.


I can go to CVS and buy fentanyl?


----------



## Yooper

T/Y for a great thread. But getting too "angels on the head of a pin" for me.

The tension - I believe - is between "the Public's" desire to be safe from users/abusers and users' rights to run their lives the way they see fit.

I get it. I'm in the latter category and (as I stated previously) would prefer to let people do what they want and suffer the consequences of their decisions (be it withdrawal, legal action from driving DUI or stealing to support their habit, etc.).

The former category doesn't want anyone to have that light a leash b/c they want to preempt any future catastrophe (which, by definition, is hypothetical). But they short-circuit that by saying "blood be on your head" should anything happen like someone losing a child, etc. A great emotional appeal, but if we are to use that logic we might as well ban/restrict EVERYTHING (like the idiots in the UK seem to be doing). In other words, it's stupid; it appeals to the unthinking heart and not to the I-wish-more-people-had-them, adult brains.

I don't have any sympathy for any version of the "we need to save everyone from themselves" arguments. Unfortunately, these "we care" campaigns seem to be winning right now. And we wonder why our kids are still kids at age 40, living at home in our basements. These folks want to keep everyone infantilized. Yes, "_Brave New World_."

Rant over. That is all.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## Yooper

Chris0nllyn said:


> Fentanyl is already legal.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're asking.





This_person said:


> I can go to CVS and buy fentanyl?



Apples and oranges. It is legal. But it is also controlled.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## This_person

Yooper said:


> Apples and oranges. It is legal. But it is also controlled.
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)


The reason it is not apples and oranges to me is that any reasonable review of the data would show that Schedule I, where pot is today, is likely the wrong category, but it is very reasonable to put it in Schedule III or IV.  Restricted use, not recreational.

The other difference is that if it is legal to use for everyone, as the suggestion is that pot should be, and that all drugs should be treated equally from a "freedom and liberty" standpoint, then fentanyl is NOT legal today by those standards.

So, let's have it; should fentanyl be on the shelf next to aspirin and pot and toothpaste, or is it reasonable to control some drugs?  If it is, reasonable interpretation of pot would show it would be a controlled substance.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

This_person said:


> I can go to CVS and buy fentanyl?



If you have a prescription, yes.



This_person said:


> The reason it is not apples and oranges to me is that any reasonable review of the data would show that Schedule I, where pot is today, is likely the wrong category, but it is very reasonable to put it in Schedule III or IV.  Restricted use, not recreational.
> 
> The other difference is that if it is legal to use for everyone, as the suggestion is that pot should be, and that all drugs should be treated equally from a "freedom and liberty" standpoint, then fentanyl is NOT legal today by those standards.
> 
> So, let's have it; should fentanyl be on the shelf next to aspirin and pot and toothpaste, or is it reasonable to control some drugs?  If it is, reasonable interpretation of pot would show it would be a controlled substance.



Would you agree that we can regulate mind-altering substances without putting them on a schedule? I know the comparison gets beat to death, but alcohol has a host of issues associated with it, but it's not a scheduled drug. It is, however, regulated. 

I think that drugs should be decriminalized but don't advocate for them to be sold "next to aspirin and toothpaste".


----------



## GURPS

Chris0nllyn said:


> I know percocet is good for pain management   ......   but I hate the way it makes me feel.




Indeed ....


----------



## This_person

Chris0nllyn said:


> If you have a prescription, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you agree that we can regulate mind-altering substances without putting them on a schedule? I know the comparison gets beat to death, but alcohol has a host of issues associated with it, but it's not a scheduled drug. It is, however, regulated.
> 
> I think that drugs should be decriminalized but don't advocate for them to be sold "next to aspirin and toothpaste".


Should pot?

Because, here’s the thing...what you just described is EXACTLY the way it is today. Some drugs are available, some are not readily accessible. 

You disagree with some specifics, not the status quo


----------



## Chris0nllyn

This_person said:


> Should pot?
> 
> Because, here’s the thing...what you just described is EXACTLY the way it is today. Some drugs are available, some are not readily accessible.
> 
> You disagree with some specifics, not the status quo



Should pot, what? Be sold next to aspirin? No. 

If I described what it's like today we wouldn't be commenting in a thread about legalizing marijuana.

I'm sure I disagree with both. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I can tell you that what we've been doing, ain't working, by any metric.


----------



## officeguy

Chris0nllyn said:


> I skipped a number of parts because I can't link the entire article. Not sure what's funny about it, but the idea that taxpayers are footing the bill is incorrect. Colorado is doing just fine.



The cost is just not carried by the state. It is carried by employers and the health insurance system. If you go to the hospital because you are paranoid and your heart is racing, its your health insurer that picks up the tab. If you wreck your car because you are high, its not the state that picks up the bill, its the pool of others that pay premiums towards your car insurance.


----------



## officeguy

This_person said:


> I can go to CVS and buy fentanyl?



Sure. If your doc writes you a triplicate for it, you can get a fentanyl patch or liquid fentanyl for a pump.

Heck, you can get a script for cocaine.

Btw. heroin is incorrectly scheduled. It's a great pain killer, no reason to have regular morphine and hydromorphone available but diamorphine is somehow evil.


----------



## This_person

Chris0nllyn said:


> Should pot, what? Be sold next to aspirin? No.
> 
> If I described what it's like today we wouldn't be commenting in a thread about legalizing marijuana.
> 
> I'm sure I disagree with both. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I can tell you that what we've been doing, ain't working, by any metric.


So, it's ok for drugs to not be available to the public (controlled)….That's exactly what it is today.  Your concern is over what you view as a particular mis-Scheduling of a particular drug, with no good reason for that because it currently fits the current Schedule definition.  You just want pot legal, and uncontrolled - even though you fully accept that drugs can and should be controlled.

You're not for freedom or liberty, you're for the recreational use of pot.  If you were for freedom and liberty in the way you say, you would want fentanyl to be uncontrolled just like pot.  you don't.  You like the status quo, just not for pot.

It's not about freedom and liberty, it's not about the waste that is the war on drugs....it's about legal pot.

This is why people think this is the libertarian position - because when push comes to shove, it's exactly what you back.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

This_person said:


> So, it's ok for drugs to not be available to the public (controlled)….That's exactly what it is today.  Your concern is over what you view as a particular mis-Scheduling of a particular drug, with no good reason for that because it currently fits the current Schedule definition.  You just want pot legal, and uncontrolled - even though you fully accept that drugs can and should be controlled.
> 
> You're not for freedom or liberty, you're for the recreational use of pot.  If you were for freedom and liberty in the way you say, you would want fentanyl to be uncontrolled just like pot.  you don't.  You like the status quo, just not for pot.
> 
> It's not about freedom and liberty, it's not about the waste that is the war on drugs....it's about legal pot.
> 
> This is why people think this is the libertarian position - because when push comes to shove, it's exactly what you back.



I want it avilable to the public in a controlled environment. Like alcohol. I said that multiple times, so I'm not sure how you read that as " want it uncontrolled".

I fully recognize that it is a mind altering substance that should not be avilable on a shelf "next to aspirin".

Part of my concern is mis-scheduling, sure, but it's the fact that's it's scheduled at all, not that it's "mis" scheduled.

I can be for freedom and liberty and have an understanding that mind altering substances should not be readily available to any and everyone. I'm sure there are libertarians/anarchists that believe what you states, but it's not me.

I recognize the need for_ some _government.

Portugal decrminalized all drugs and they aren't readily open and available to the public, so it's possible.

Call it whatever you want. Paint me into whatever you want. It's my opinion, my position, and I'll stick to it.


----------



## This_person

Chris0nllyn said:


> I want it avilable to the public in a controlled environment. Like alcohol. I said that multiple times, so I'm not sure how you read that as " want it uncontrolled".
> 
> I fully recognize that it is a mind altering substance that should not be avilable on a shelf "next to aspirin".
> 
> Part of my concern is mis-scheduling, sure, but it's the fact that's it's scheduled at all, not that it's "mis" scheduled.
> 
> I can be for freedom and liberty and have an understanding that mind altering substances should not be readily available to any and everyone. I'm sure there are libertarians/anarchists that believe what you states, but it's not me.
> 
> I recognize the need for_ some _government.
> 
> Portugal decrm,inalzed all drugs and they aren't readily open and available to the public, so it's possible.


So, I ask you again:  Would you put fentanyl and pot in the same category:  like alcohol, on the shelf next to the aspirin but you need an ID card that says you're a certain age to obtain it?

You don't seem to be saying that in previous statements, so I am trying to see if you think fentanyl and pot are to be treated exactly the same way.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

This_person said:


> So, I ask you again:  Would you put fentanyl and pot in the same category:  like alcohol, on the shelf next to the aspirin but you need an ID card that says you're a certain age to obtain it?
> 
> You don't seem to be saying that in previous statements, so I am trying to see if you think fentanyl and pot are to be treated exactly the same way.



And since you agree with the DEA's scheduling of marijuana, I asked you if a host of drugs are "better" or "safer" than marijuana because they are scheduled lower....with no answer. 

I think they should be treated the exact same way.

When citizens think of drug use, what do they think/see? They see costs. They think of the human and economic costs of drug use. Society as a whole says "we don't want to bear these costs" and makes drugs illegal. This ignores the fact that it's not a problem until people misuse the substance. But that'strue for a host of things. Food, cars/vehicles, etc. are all things that can be, and are, misused by the public and imposing costs on the same public. Are drugs any different that those things in that respect? 

If we are worried about the negative side effects, then why make it illegal? Medical professionals, and I suspect many-a-heroin users, know the effects of fentanyl because it's quality controlled in a lab environment. We, as a society, have made drugs illegal but it has resulted in a black full of violence, corruption, and a market devoid of quality control increasing the chances of misuse or accidents. Civil liberteries are infringed, racial profiling exists, SWAT raids, civil asset forefiture, etc are all the direct result of this "war on drugs". So, what's worse, the cost of treatment, or the cost of prohibition policy? 

Drugs are just another economic good and there's a misconception that drug users are not rational in their decision making. Are some not? Absolutely, but research exists that lead us to believe that people behave similar with respect to drugs as they do with many other things. Decisions about doing the drug, where to buy it, reliable sources, etc. are all decisions made by users. Prohibiton makes it tough for rational decision to be be made because of lack of options. In a legal marketplace, you know what it is. While some choose to misuse or overconsume, naive users fall victim in a black market where drugs are more likely to poison you.

Basic economics show us that when people want something, and it's hard to get or illegal, there will be a black market. I heard on a podcast once that, "no one will care if they ban broccoli ice cream because no one eats it. You ban chocolate ice cream and there will be a black market".

 Obviously, marijuana is not deadly. The lethal dose is beyond human conumption abilities and no one has died from it directly, so of course the risks associated with it are lower than, say, cocaine. But what about the many legal products that, if consumed in excess, can be lethal? "You take 30 advil and it'll be your last headache", stand out to me. But so do things that are FDA-approved. Xanax is legally prescribed, but take too many and you die. Same, obviously, with fentanyl. I think people assume that because it's govt.-approved, it's "safe". There is a disproportionate amount of time and energy spent on illegal drugs and the dangers associated with them. 

Why should policy dictate the legality of some pleasures (getting drunk or "buzzed" from alcohol, for example) over others (getting high on heroin)? Playing football is dangerous. Driving fast is dangerous. As is drug use.

When it comes to taxing substandes, I don't like the idea of a so-called "sin tax", or an additional tax on certain goods because the line of thinking that led to that tax can be applied elsewhere on other goods. There's an alcohol tax and people will often say that alcohol is dangerous because some folks may drive drunk and cause accidents. Is late night TV dangerous since people could stay up too late and be tired driving to work in the morning? Is food dangerous since peopel can overeat, thus causing excessive public healthcare expenditures? If we have a sales tax, everything should be subject to it and not have things carved out because politicians think those things are somehow more dangerous than others. 

I tend to think that overall, people do reasonable things. Not everyone, but most people. Most people don't want to get into an accident or hurt themselves or deal with the consequences of a DWI so they do things to mitigate that risk via cab or UBER or car ride from a friend. Because of that, most people would not likely start doing heroin if it were decriminalized tomorrow.

So, yes, they should be treated the same because, like many things in our lives, they both carry some level of risk. We made alcohol legal, but put up with (and even celebrate it) despite the violence, domestic abuse, drunk driving, and all sorts of irresponsible behavior that comes with it. The issue is how do we mitigate those risks? If fentanyl was sold in a legal/controlled market, it would help those people with chronic pain. It was made for a reason, and it's pain relief. There are people very much in need of it, and a hdnaful of people who committed suicide because their doctor cut them off from the prescription pain meds they were on due to pain. If there is a demand for fentanyl (and it's derivatives), maybe there would be less of a deman for it people were able to get morphine in known doses? Maybe a legal market would package it in a way that makes it hard to OD (ever tried getting NyQuil out of its packaging)?

The biggest benefit I see when it comes to decrminalization is having and improving services available to help users without stigma attached to admitting to illegal drug use or locking someone up for use/possessing.

If fentanyl or heroin were sold next to aspirin, it may make some people essentially zombies (as they are now, I guess) but on the flip side, the direct costs of infringing on civil liberites, reducing crime, corruption, and the host of other things that come with prohibition are avoided.  

But note that I've been saying decriminalization. Not full legalization. The downside of decriminalization is that you essentially legalize the demand side while acknowledging the supply side but keep it illegal. From an economic standpoint (and logical consistency) should they both be legal? You're still enforcing laws on the supply side, thus likely to see the same problems mentioned above about prohibition anyway but without collecting tax revenue; while still having quality control issues, and the crime and corruption. I imagine most places that have decriminalized drugs have quasi-stopped enforcing the supply side.


----------



## This_person

Chris0nllyn said:


> And since you agree with the DEA's scheduling of marijuana, I asked you if a host of drugs are "better" or "safer" than marijuana because they are scheduled lower....with no answer.



I did answer.  I said that I think pot is in the wrong schedule, but it is not appropriate to take off of the schedule process.



> When citizens think of drug use, what do they think/see? They see costs. They think of the human and economic costs of drug use. Society as a whole says "we don't want to bear these costs" and makes drugs illegal. This ignores the fact that it's not a problem until people misuse the substance. But that's true for a host of things. Food, cars/vehicles, etc. are all things that can be, and are, misused by the public and imposing costs on the same public. Are drugs any different that those things in that respect?



Yes.  Drugs are both physically and psychologically addictive to a large swath of the population, and the results cause far more issues than psychological addictions to food or cars.  



> If we are worried about the negative side effects, then why make it illegal? Medical professionals, and I suspect many-a-heroin users, know the effects of fentanyl because it's quality controlled in a lab environment. We, as a society, have made drugs illegal but it has resulted in a black full of violence, corruption, and a market devoid of quality control increasing the chances of misuse or accidents. Civil liberties are infringed, racial profiling exists, SWAT raids, civil asset forfeiture, etc. are all the direct result of this "war on drugs". So, what's worse, the cost of treatment, or the cost of prohibition policy?



You're not making an argument against making drugs illegal, you are making an argument about policy on implementing drug laws.  Racial profiling is arguable, but not provable.  Civil asset forfeiture is a policy issue that has to do with a lot more than drugs.  SWAT raids were implemented on political figures just recently having nothing to do with drugs.  Civil liberties are not infringed based on drugs, they're infringed based on elected representatives making laws that do so in a plethora of ways that just happen to include drugs followed by the population voting those people back into office.

Quality control is an issue that is antithetical to freedom if you want the government to supply it.

You're not making a cogent argument about freedom, you're trying to suggest pot should be legal.  You're making my point.



> Drugs are just another economic good and there's a misconception that drug users are not rational in their decision making. Are some not? Absolutely, but research exists that lead us to believe that people behave similar with respect to drugs as they do with many other things. Decisions about doing the drug, where to buy it, reliable sources, etc. are all decisions made by users. Prohibition makes it tough for rational decision to be made because of lack of options. In a legal marketplace, you know what it is. While some choose to misuse or overconsume, naïve users fall victim in a black market where drugs are more likely to poison you.



So, if we just regulate it enough, government will protect us from ourselves?  Is that really you're point?  That's not a point for freedom, that's a point for higher quality, better regulated pot.



> Basic economics show us that when people want something, and it's hard to get or illegal, there will be a black market. I heard on a podcast once that, "no one will care if they ban broccoli ice cream because no one eats it. You ban chocolate ice cream and there will be a black market".



And, if you punish purchasers instead of sellers, you will end the market.  The problem, again, is about how the war on drugs is executed, not that there is a war on drugs.



> Obviously, marijuana is not deadly. The lethal dose is beyond human consumption abilities and no one has died from it directly, so of course the risks associated with it are lower than, say, cocaine. But what about the many legal products that, if consumed in excess, can be lethal? "You take 30 advil and it'll be your last headache", stand out to me. But so do things that are FDA-approved. Xanax is legally prescribed, but take too many and you die. Same, obviously, with fentanyl. I think people assume that because it's govt.-approved, it's "safe". There is a disproportionate amount of time and energy spent on illegal drugs and the dangers associated with them.



Because there's no point in re-proving the unnecessary.  But, again, you're talking about levels of regulation, not freedom.  You simply want pot legal because you, personally, perceive it as a lower risk.  "Risk", unless I'm mistaken, is not part of the definition of the various Schedules.  You are in favor of having the various schedules, it seems, since you are in favor of regulation.  You simply want pot regulated differently because you believe it is on the wrong schedule.  You're making not a single argument in favor of having fentanyl available to the general population without prescription, like alcohol or Advil.  You're saying "that's ok to be only available if a person approved by the government tells me it's okay to have it" with respect to fentanyl, but, "Pot's safe, cuz my buddy never died from it, so I don't need nobody to tell me I can't have it."



> Why should policy dictate the legality of some pleasures (getting drunk or "buzzed" from alcohol, for example) over others (getting high on heroin)? Playing football is dangerous. Driving fast is dangerous. As is drug use.



Driving fast is regulated.  Playing football professionally is regulated.  Getting drunk, it seems you think, must need to be regulated?



> When it comes to taxing substances, I don't like the idea of a so-called "sin tax", or an additional tax on certain goods because the line of thinking that led to that tax can be applied elsewhere on other goods. There's an alcohol tax and people will often say that alcohol is dangerous because some folks may drive drunk and cause accidents. Is late night TV dangerous since people could stay up too late and be tired driving to work in the morning? Is food dangerous since peopel can overeat, thus causing excessive public healthcare expenditures? If we have a sales tax, everything should be subject to it and not have things carved out because politicians think those things are somehow more dangerous than others.



A great tangent, having nothing to do with the topic at hand.



> I tend to think that overall, people do reasonable things. Not everyone, but most people. Most people don't want to get into an accident or hurt themselves or deal with the consequences of a DWI so they do things to mitigate that risk via cab or UBER or car ride from a friend. Because of that, most people would not likely start doing heroin if it were decriminalized tomorrow.



The same thing was said about pot use.  Recent history in places like Colorado prove that line of thinking false.



> So, yes, they should be treated the same because, like many things in our lives, they both carry some level of risk. We made alcohol legal, but put up with (and even celebrate it) despite the violence, domestic abuse, drunk driving, and all sorts of irresponsible behavior that comes with it. The issue is how do we mitigate those risks? If fentanyl was sold in a legal/controlled market, it would help those people with chronic pain. It was made for a reason, and it's pain relief. There are people very much in need of it, and a handful of people who committed suicide because their doctor cut them off from the prescription pain meds they were on due to pain. If there is a demand for fentanyl (and it's derivatives), maybe there would be less of a demand for it people were able to get morphine in known doses? Maybe a legal market would package it in a way that makes it hard to OD (ever tried getting NyQuil out of its packaging)?



So, fentanyl on the counters next to NyQuil?  I've already asked you that, and you said that you don't' think that's how it should be.  Pick a side.



> The biggest benefit I see when it comes to decriminalization is having and improving services available to help users without stigma attached to admitting to illegal drug use or locking someone up for use/possessing.



The biggest drawback I see to decriminalization is removing the stigma.



> If fentanyl or heroin were sold next to aspirin, it may make some people essentially zombies (as they are now, I guess) but on the flip side, the direct costs of infringing on civil liberites, reducing crime, corruption, and the host of other things that come with prohibition are avoided.
> 
> But note that I've been saying decriminalization. Not full legalization. The downside of decriminalization is that you essentially legalize the demand side while acknowledging the supply side but keep it illegal. From an economic standpoint (and logical consistency) should they both be legal? You're still enforcing laws on the supply side, thus likely to see the same problems mentioned above about prohibition anyway but without collecting tax revenue; while still having quality control issues, and the crime and corruption. I imagine most places that have decriminalized drugs have quasi-stopped enforcing the supply side.



If we could get government out of the business of giving people money for not working, giving health-care providers money to take care of people with insufficient money, etc., etc., I would be far better off.  It would make for a far more dangerous society, but freedom is not safe.  But, so long as my money, taken from me by force by the government, is given to people for those things, I don't want drugs readily available to make more people on the taking side.


----------



## Merlin99

officeguy said:


> I still believe it should be legal. Not because it's good for you, simply because the 'war on drugs' is doing more damage than the drug itself.


I'm in this camp, I'm kind of tired of everything having to be either outlawed or mandatory. The govt. really doesn't need their fingers in everything. It might be different if they didn't have a track record of ****ing up almost every project they get involved in.


----------



## officeguy

This_person said:


> You're not for freedom or liberty, you're for the recreational use of pot.  If you were for freedom and liberty in the way you say, you would want fentanyl to be uncontrolled just like pot.  you don't.  You like the status quo, just not for pot.



I dont know how hard that is to understand. There is a difference in relative harm from fentanyl and pot. You mess up the drops of hash-oil in your brownies, you get a bit buzzed and jittery. You mess up the dosage of fentanyl to inject, you die. 

Again, I dont argue that the stuff is good for you and should be available on the health foods counter. I am saying that ungodly amounts of police and court time are wasted on 'detecting the odor of burnt marijuana' and processing people through the system. Making it legal will increase consumption but decrease societal harm.

I actually think that some injectable opiates should be available at low cost for the treatment of opiate addiction. Morphine and fentanyl are not all that expensive. Right now, it is not legal for a prescriber to write someone a triplicate for injectable fentanyl to use 'as needed' for the treatment of his drug withdrawal symptoms. If the junkies could pay $50 and pick up a bottle of morphine and a pack of syringes, the number of opiate deaths would go down dramatically.


----------



## Merlin99

This_person said:


> Now you know why I say it is about pot, not "freedom" or "liberty" or anything else.
> 
> If it was about "freedom and liberty", you would be calling the exact same thing for heroin and cocaine and crystal meth and fentanyl.  You're not.  It's about pot.
> 
> If it was about just putting pot where it belongs, you'd be all for making it a Schedule III (or something close).  You're not.  It's about pot.
> 
> *This is why I say Libertarians are just about legalizing pot, not about "freedom" and "liberty", and why I don't take Libertarians as a party seriously.  Libertarians are not about freedom and liberty - they're about getting high.  This proves it to me.*


Not necessarily, it's more like not taking things to extremes. I'm all for the second amendment, but I'm not in favor of giving a four year a glock. In the same vein I'm not thrilled with the idea of just anybody having unfettered access to high explosives. You can be libertarian without permanently parking your brain.


----------



## This_person

officeguy said:


> I dont know how hard that is to understand. There is a difference in relative harm from fentanyl and pot. You mess up the drops of hash-oil in your brownies, you get a bit buzzed and jittery. You mess up the dosage of fentanyl to inject, you die.
> 
> Again, I dont argue that the stuff is good for you and should be available on the health foods counter. I am saying that ungodly amounts of police and court time are wasted on 'detecting the odor of burnt marijuana' and processing people through the system. Making it legal will increase consumption but decrease societal harm.
> 
> I actually think that some injectable opiates should be available at low cost for the treatment of opiate addiction. Morphine and fentanyl are not all that expensive. Right now, it is not legal for a prescriber to write someone a triplicate for injectable fentanyl to use 'as needed' for the treatment of his drug withdrawal symptoms. If the junkies could pay $50 and pick up a bottle of morphine and a pack of syringes, the number of opiate deaths would go down dramatically.


But, then what YOU are saying is that controlling substances is ok.  So, for you, it's also not about freedom and liberty, it's about pot.

No study has yet to show pot has a unique or uniquely valuable use as a medical prescription.  Many studies have been done, and none show it.  Chris will tell you that the studies just weren't good enough, though he has no objective quality evidence to back that up - he merely speculates that it must be better than the studies show (in his mind).

So, in every technical way, Schedule I is where it belongs.  That does not mean it is not mis-Scheduled in a subjective way, and since the Schedule definitions include subjectivity it is certainly reasonable to suggest still that it is not Scheduled correctly.  That said, it would only move down a little bit, and therefore still not be legally available as a recreational drug.

The Libertarian argument, when you point out what I say in the last paragraph, is that it is about Freedom and Liberty.  Except, they don't agree with Freedom and Liberty when it comes to fentanyl, and therefore it's not really about Freedom and Liberty, it's about legally getting high.


----------



## This_person

Merlin99 said:


> Not necessarily, it's more like not taking things to extremes. I'm all for the second amendment, but I'm not in favor of giving a four year a glock. In the same vein I'm not thrilled with the idea of just anybody having unfettered access to high explosives. You can be libertarian without permanently parking your brain.


I get that.  I think you can be libertarian, just not Libertarian.  Like, I believe in democratic principles, but not Democrat principles.

What bothers me is when Libertarians say they are libertarian, because they clearly are not.


----------



## TCROW

This_person said:


> I get that.  I think you can be libertarian, just not Libertarian.  Like, I believe in democratic principles, but not Democrat principles.
> 
> What bothers me is when Libertarians say they are libertarian, because they clearly are not.



Few Libertarians are libertarian. They're disaffected Republicans who think they'll find another home with another dumb political party and infect it with their dumb ideas.


----------



## This_person

TCROW said:


> Few Libertarians are libertarian. They're disaffected Republicans who think they'll find another home with another dumb political party and infect it with their dumb ideas.


Personally, I'm not in a party.  I'm a conservative.

But, what ideas do you consider dumb that disaffected Republicans are bringing to the Libertarian Party?


----------



## TCROW

This_person said:


> Personally, I'm not in a party.  I'm a conservative.
> 
> But, what ideas do you consider dumb that disaffected Republicans are bringing to the Libertarian Party?



Any of 'em. To a libertarian the idea of associating with an upper-case party is antithetical to the very idea of libertarianism. Therefore, no idea is a good idea. I've been unaffiliated for 30 years or so.


----------



## Yooper

TCROW said:


> Few Libertarians are libertarian. They're disaffected Republicans who think they'll find another home with another dumb political party and infect it with their dumb ideas.


That's an interesting take. Doesn't match my experience....

When I was considering registering with the Libertarian Party I was told that most "Capital L" libertarians were of the "left side of the aisle" variety. And when I read through the Party's platform it did so seem to reflect that.

So the problem with libertarianism as a movement may be that the classic literature of libertarianism is classic conservatism/Right, but the political movement is more of the liberal/Left sort. As a result, the party can't move forward because it has a split personality.

And this is why I could never get motivated to vote for any libertarian candidate: while my libertarianism reflected the "right" variety the candidates generally espoused the "left" sort.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## TCROW

Yooper said:


> That's an interesting take. Doesn't match my experience....
> 
> When I was considering registering with the Libertarian Party I was told that most "Capital L" libertarians were of the "left side of the aisle" variety. And when I read through the Party's platform it did so seem to reflect that.
> 
> So the problem with libertarianism as a movement may be that the classic literature of libertarianism is classic conservatism/Right, but the political movement is more of the liberal/Left sort. As a result, the party can't move forward because it has a split personality.
> 
> And this is why I could never get motivated to vote for any libertarian candidate: while my libertarianism reflected the "right" variety the candidates generally espoused the "left" sort.
> 
> --- End of line (MCP)



Therein lies the curse of the libertarian or classical liberalism framework. In my milieu, those who identify right of center perceive libertarianism to be radical left. Those who identify left of center perceive libertarianism as radical right. 

The thing is frameworks don’t really migrate; people’s perception does. Classical liberalism has always been what it is. This is mostly due to mass media in my view. Contrast that with formal national parties to include Libertarians — their platforms and “framework” is constantly changing to attract money and votes.


----------



## jrt_ms1995

https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/


----------



## Yooper

jrt_ms1995 said:


> https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/
> 
> View attachment 136138


Great post. DL'd and saved. Thank you.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## officeguy

This_person said:


> But, then what YOU are saying is that controlling substances is ok.  So, for you, it's also not about freedom and liberty, it's about pot.



Repeating a specious argument doesn't make it any truer.



> No study has yet to show pot has a unique or uniquely valuable use as a medical prescription.  Many studies have been done, and none show it.



That statement in its absolute phrasing is simply incorrect.

What is certainly correct is that there is very little data to support the claims of wide ranging benefits that got the medical marijuana scam passed in so many states.



> The Libertarian argument, when you point out what I say in the last paragraph, is that it is about Freedom and Liberty.  Except, they don't agree with Freedom and Liberty when it comes to fentanyl, and therefore it's not really about Freedom and Liberty, it's about legally getting high.



Again, how hard is this to understand ? The physical harm from MJ if all the criminal justice issues are removed is quite limited and certainly not worse than alcohol and nicotine. You can drink yourself to death, its near impossible to kill yourself using the parmacologic compound in MJ. There have have been people who have come to grief after extremely high doses, but that's the 'I believe I can fly' stuff you see with alcohol every day. Yes, there is a single digit percentage risk of suffering a psychotic episode after high doses of THC, but that's not on par with the risk of death from fentanyl or predictable cardiac damage from stimulants.


----------



## This_person

officeguy said:


> Repeating a specious argument doesn't make it any truer.



It's really indisputable.  If it were about freedom and liberty, the potential risks of fentanyl would not be a factor, because freedom is scary and dangerous.



> That statement in its absolute phrasing is simply incorrect.
> 
> What is certainly correct is that there is very little data to support the claims of wide ranging benefits that got the medical marijuana scam passed in so many states.



Nothing has been shown that supports the idea pot is better or unique in it's capabilities as a prescription medicine.  



> Again, how hard is this to understand ? The physical harm from MJ if all the criminal justice issues are removed is quite limited and certainly not worse than alcohol and nicotine. You can drink yourself to death, its near impossible to kill yourself using the pharmacologic compound in MJ. There have been people who have come to grief after extremely high doses, but that's the 'I believe I can fly' stuff you see with alcohol every day. Yes, there is a single digit percentage risk of suffering a psychotic episode after high doses of THC, but that's not on par with the risk of death from fentanyl or predictable cardiac damage from stimulants.



And, you can literally drink sufficient water to die.  It's not about the potential harm - at least not in accordance with the definitions of the Schedules.

And, you can kill yourself with a car, or a knife, or a big tall tree and a short piece of rope (according to CDB).  The Schedule definitions:





			
				DEA said:
			
		

> *Schedule I*
> 
> Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:
> 
> heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote
> 
> *Schedule II*
> 
> Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are:
> 
> Combination products with less than 15 milligrams of hydrocodone per dosage unit (Vicodin), cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin
> 
> *Schedule III*
> 
> Schedule III drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence. Schedule III drugs abuse potential is less than Schedule I and Schedule II drugs but more than Schedule IV. Some examples of Schedule III drugs are:
> 
> Products containing less than 90 milligrams of codeine per dosage unit (Tylenol with codeine), ketamine, anabolic steroids, testosterone
> 
> *Schedule IV*
> 
> Schedule IV drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a low potential for abuse and low risk of dependence. Some examples of Schedule IV drugs are:
> 
> Xanax, Soma, Darvon, Darvocet, Valium, Ativan, Talwin, Ambien, Tramadol
> 
> *Schedule V*
> 
> Schedule V drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with lower potential for abuse than Schedule IV and consist of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics. Schedule V drugs are generally used for antidiarrheal, antitussive, and analgesic purposes. Some examples of Schedule V drugs are:
> 
> cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine or per 100 milliliters (Robitussin AC), Lomotil, Motofen, Lyrica, Parepectolin



As you can see, the "danger" consideration is only provided for Schedule II.  This is why I suggest that - while pot is very technically accurately put in Schedule I, based on the definitions - pot would just as easily be put in Schedule III.  This would still not be OTC drugs, recreational use, etc.

If one is about Freedom and Liberty, one wants every bit of this schedule-definition to go away.  If one believes the government has a reasonable role in restricting the use of the drugs by having such a schedule system, then one is no longer about Freedom and Liberty, but merely negotiating how much of that freedom and liberty we are willing to give up.

This is NOT the same thing as saying a four-year-old should not have ready access to a Glock.  That is absolutely true.  The question is, who should regulate the four-year-old's access to the Glock?  Should it be the parents, or the county sheriff, or the state legislature, or people like AOC in the national legislature?  If you love Freedom and Liberty, you choose the former.  If you are fine with governmental controls over your right to keep and bear arms, it's up to the latter categories.

Personally, I am fine with the Schedule definitions for drugs, because we have already given the government control over our entire incomes and simply thank them when they exercise less of it instead of control over more of it. In doing so, we have allowed the government to take our wealth and disperse it to whomever they choose, including those unwilling to work or those who incapacitate themselves with drugs and injure themselves or others - and we take care of those medical bills as well.  So, limiting who gets what is fine with me as a part of limiting how much control over my wealth the government takes.

I am less inclined to willingly accept the control over my weapons, but that is a different subject altogether.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

This_person said:


> It's really indisputable.  If it were about freedom and liberty, the potential risks of fentanyl would not be a factor, because freedom is scary and dangerous.
> ...
> This is NOT the same thing as saying a four-year-old should not have ready access to a Glock.  That is absolutely true. ...



Freedom is scary and dangerous, but you believe that gun ownership could be limited because of the danger associated with it?

But it's not the same thing?


----------



## This_person

Chris0nllyn said:


> Freedom is scary and dangerous, but you believe that gun ownership could be limited because of the danger associated with it?
> 
> But it's not the same thing?


Chris, read the whole thing.  I said that a 4 year-old should not have a Glock - that's just common sense.  But, I also said that it is up to the parent, not any government agency to control that.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

This_person said:


> Chris, read the whole thing.  I said that a 4 year-old should not have a Glock - that's just common sense.  But, I also said that it is up to the parent, not any government agency to control that.



And you'll notice that I never said the government should control access to marijuana, I just said that it should be controlled (like alcohol, though I acknowlegde the govt. control of alcohol) because regulating mind altering substances is "just common sense".

One can be for liberty without advocating for anarchy or letting common sense go out the window.


----------



## This_person

Chris0nllyn said:


> And you'll notice that I never said the government should control access to marijuana, I just said that it should be controlled (like alcohol, though I acknowlegde the govt. control of alcohol) because regulating mind altering substances is "just common sense".
> 
> One can be for liberty without advocating for anarchy or letting common sense go out the window.


So, I would have the Glock be on the shelf and available for purchase.  Would you have fentanyl and pot be next to the Glock?


----------



## Ken King

This_person said:


> No study has yet to show pot has a unique or uniquely valuable use as a medical prescription


Why must it be unique, why not just a viable or alternative use?  There are studies that indicate that there are viable uses for marijuana as medicine.  And the lack of US sanctioned studies might have something to do with our governments deterrent to these studies.  NIH has documented the barriers and challenges to medicinal marijuana research - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425757/  The WHO has called for the rescheduling of cannabis, why should we deny it?


----------



## This_person

Ken King said:


> Why must it be unique, why not just a viable or alternative use?  There are studies that indicate that there are viable uses for marijuana as medicine.  And the lack of US sanctioned studies might have something to do with our governments deterrent to these studies.  NIH has documented the barriers and challenges to medicinal marijuana research - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425757/  The WHO has called for the rescheduling of cannabis, why should we deny it?


Because the definition of Schedule I is "drugs with no currently accepted medical use."  Until there's a currently accepted medical use, there is no currently accepted medical use, and today that's where we are at, making it fit in Schedule I.

When there is an accepted medical use, then it may change to Schedule III.  there's no currently accepted medical use because there's nothing that shows pot is a viable replacement or substitute or alternative to anything else.  Nothing needs to be changed, so there's no need to change.


----------



## Ken King

This_person said:


> Because the definition of Schedule I is "drugs with no currently accepted medical use."  Until there's a currently accepted medical use, there is no currently accepted medical use, and today that's where we are at, making it fit in Schedule I.
> 
> When there is an accepted medical use, then it may change to Schedule III.  there's no currently accepted medical use because there's nothing that shows pot is a viable replacement or substitute or alternative to anything else.  Nothing needs to be changed, so there's no need to change.


Well that isn't true, From drugabuse.gov, "...scientific study of the chemicals in marijuana, called _cannabinoids_, has led to two FDA-approved medications that contain cannabinoid chemicals in pill form. Continued research may lead to more medications."

Edit:  Of additional importance to note is that these schedules, that you clinging to, are determined by Congress and not scientists or medical professionals.


----------



## This_person

Ken King said:


> Well that isn't true, From drugabuse.gov, "...scientific study of the chemicals in marijuana, called _cannabinoids_, has led to two FDA-approved medications that contain cannabinoid chemicals in pill form. Continued research may lead to more medications."



Are those currently accepted for medical use, or are those in test form?



> Edit:  Of additional importance to note is that these schedules, that you clinging to, are determined by Congress and not scientists or medical professionals.



I'm not sure the relevance, since we are talking laws and enforcement of laws, not practice of life.


----------



## Ken King

This_person said:


> Are those currently accepted for medical use, or are those in test form?


They have been approved as drugs by the FDA for medicinal use and it is now up to three vice two with the addition of Epidiolex.  The earlier approved two were dronabinol and nabilone.  

Imagine what might be found with reclassification (something Congress must do, thus the relevance) and relaxing of the barriers imposed.


----------



## officeguy

This_person said:


> Because the definition of Schedule I is "drugs with no currently accepted medical use."  Until there's a currently accepted medical use, there is no currently accepted medical use, and today that's where we are at, making it fit in Schedule I.



Again, while there is no data to support the expansive claims of benefit from the medical marijuana scamsters, there is data to support some medical uses. Some seizure disorders respond to cannabis products and it works for the treatment of some peripheral neuropathies.

The scheduling decisions by the DEA are a mix of spitballing and politics. MDMA is schedule 1 yet  Meth is schedule 2. Only makes sense if you dont think about it.


----------



## This_person

officeguy said:


> Again, while there is no data to support the expansive claims of benefit from the medical marijuana scamsters, there is data to support some medical uses. Some seizure disorders respond to cannabis products and it works for the treatment of some peripheral neuropathies.
> 
> The scheduling decisions by the DEA are a mix of spitballing and politics. MDMA is schedule 1 yet  Meth is schedule 2. Only makes sense if you dont think about it.


As I said, there's a great deal of subjectivity in the definitions with respect to how they are implemented.

That's what happens when you give government control over your freedom.


----------



## Yooper

I'm sure many (most?) have seen this before, but it's a good one (I think so, anyway).








--- End of line (MCP)


----------

